A very gay Scotland

The leader of Scotland’s Labour party, Kezia Dugdale, has become the fifth key political figure and the fourth party leader in Scottish politics to come out as gay. Giving an interview to a magazine, Dugdale said she had a female partner.

Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservative party; Patrick Harvie, the leader of the Scottish Green party; and David Coburn, the leader of Ukip Scotland, have also come out as gay or bisexual, along with Scotland’s only Conservative MP, David Mundell, the secretary of state for Scotland.

This means Nicola Sturgeon is the only senior politician in Scotland who isn’t gay – obviously there needs to be a quota for heterosexuals!

Most people don’t care about the sexual orientation of their politicians. We should judge politicians on their choices, not on who they are.

But statistically it is rare to have so many gay senior politicians. If one accepts only 6% of the population is gay, then the chances of the leaders of the Tories, Labour, UKIP and Greens all being gay is very very small.

3-coil

Mobile Michael

I mean this sincerely, but who cares? I’m more worried about what politicians plan to do when they’re putting together policy and legislation than what they plan to do (consensually) when they get home. I’m voting for candidates based on policy choices and competence.

Stars And Stripes

Mobile Mike – agree with what you say as long as the people concerned when in power don’t also try to push their sexuality barrow down the publics throat which in a lot of cases is exactly what these types try and do.
It’s a two way street really.

Yes, but people make choices based on who they are. In The Ethics Aristotle wrote, “men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.” Do you really believe that if an issue arose, such as a vote needing to be taken on trans or same-sex bathrooms, that the politician wouldn’t vote a certain way based on his lifestyle? Of course he would. That is why people vote for politicians who share the same beliefs they do. This pertains to people in any positions of power. Just look at the liberal bias on universities and the ratio of conservative to progressive professors.

It is nonsensical to say that someone’s personal beliefs do not affect the decisions he makes in his work.

I’ve worked on some nice houses for gay couples. They’re good clients – always two good incomes so they pay on time and in full.
They’re used to sticking up for themselves so they’ll always make a decision confidently when a decision is needed.
Usually have their own sense of style so they naturally rein in the worst of the architect’s flights of fancy. They’ll often just up sticks and go to europe for three months so the builder can get in and have really good access to do the work.

ps, back in 2014 Scottish MPs voted by 105 to 18 in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill, legalizing gay marriage. I am wondering whether having leaders of the four main parties that are gay had any influence on the outcome? Surely they voted for the bill themselves and encouraged others to?

On the other hand, if we assume that there is no such thing as being gay, and that sexual preferences are malleable and culturally influenced, it makes a lot of sense being gay as a politician. What better defence then: “How dare you attack a gay person!”

Inandout

Kezia Dugdale’s political career will probably be short lived, unless she renounces her sexual bent.

‘There are now over 60,000 Muslims living in Scotland and Islam is thus the second largest religion in this country. There are about 60 Mosques in Scotland and the new purpose-built beautiful Mosques’.
The Islamic Tartan

Interestingly, I attended a conference in Edinburgh last year. We were hosted at a “reception” at the Scottish Parliament (where no food or drink was offered), and Ms Dugdale, having recently taken over the leadership of the Labour Party, shared her “vision” with us.

In the best traditions of socialism, there is nae a problem in Scotland that cannae be solved through large applications of Other People’s Money 😀

stephieboy

A very Gay Scotland ? Could it be the highly secular nature of Scotland’s society where 37% don’t profess any religious faith with a strong humanist tradition as for example Adam Smith and David Hume . I would also add the Church of Scotland ( Presbyterian ) with also a strong emphasis on a rational and reasoned approach to understanding theological questions .

Though Islam is the second largest religion in Scotland it represents about 0.9% of the 5.34 Million population .Roughly the same as here so I doubt if Scotland we would see the building of 60 Mosques when we don’t nearly have the same numbers here.

Manolo

chiz

Fletch:

the percentage of gay and bisexual persons in the UK is 1.5%.

The study referred to in your link didn’t find that, despite what the headline claimed. What it found is that 1.5% were willing to admit, to a random stranger ringing them up or asking them on the doorstep, that they were gay. Another 3% weren’t willing to say. Perhaps more relevant is that only 95% said they were heterosexual. So that leaves 5% of the British population who aren’t heterosexual.

“Most people don’t care about the sexual orientation of their politicians. We should judge politicians on their choices, not on who they are.”

If “who they are” is likely to determine their policy choices, then their choice of sexual fetish is relevant. And it is a choice. Homosexuality is not an objective state of being, any more than guys who get off wearing rubber masks is.

chiz, the figure wouldn’t be too different to America, where, according to the CDC –

Results—Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as ‘‘something else,’’ stated ‘‘I don’t know the answer,’’ or refused to provide an answer.

I think the statistic is much the same worldwide. The number of homosexuals is somewhere between 1% – 2%, without adding bisexuals. The report also notes finds that gay men, who make up only two percent of the U.S. population, constitute 52 percent of Americans with HIV.

‘Mississippi governor signs law allowing service denial to gay people’

“Mississippi’s governor signed a law on Tuesday that allows public and private businesses to refuse service to gay couples based on the employers’ religious beliefs.

Gov. Phil Bryant signed House Bill 1523, despite opposition from gay-rights groups and some businesses who say it enables discrimination. Some conservative and religious groups support the bill.

The measure’s stated intention is to protect those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should only take place inside such marriages, and that male and female genders are unchangeable.”

Stars And Stripes

stephieboy

Homosexuality is Genetic: Strongest Evidence Yet,

“Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live “unnaturally.”..”

mikenmild

‘Mississippi governor signs law allowing service denial to gay people’

The Jesusland legislatures seem to be locked in a competition as to who can produce the most hateful laws.
The current leader is the Mississippi law, which ‘allows religious landlords to evict gay and trans renters; permits religious employers to fire workers for being LGBTQ; allows adoption agencies—private and state-run—to turn away same-sex couples; allows private businesses to refuse services to gay people; allows clerks and judges to refuse to marry same-sex couples; and forbids trans students from using public school bathrooms that align with their gender identity’.
Pretending this is about ‘religious freedom’ is providing a fig leaf for a new kind of segregation, but focusing on LGBT people rather than blacks.
Although these laws are almost certainly unconstitutional, they will harm their targets in the interim, but also harm the states which adopts them. New York has already banned official travel to Mississippi. A number of large businesses are pulling out of states enacting similar laws

Kimbo

@ David Farrar

Someone suggested to me that you have more gay people in politics as they are less likely to have children, and hence can devote more time to a political career.

That is a more charitable version that John Tamihere’s self-pitying explanation after he self-destructed his political career, that as gay politicians don’t have kids, they have more time to sit around plotting.

Kimbo

@ mikenmild

Pretty kinky book that, Kimbo.

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass” and all that? Actually even when reading in context you are right…the rape of Tamar in II Samuel 13 comes to mind. But then, unsurprisingly as it deals with the matter of cosmic fall and redemption, it is reflective of human nature at its best…and most base.

mikenmild

Shunda
All sorts of things are possible when you have a mix of genetics, birth conditions, environment, and all sorts of social mores, etc. Current research seems to have a consensus that sexual orientation is biological in origin; but sexual behaviour is likely to be much more complicated. The classic example is ‘men who have sex with men’, but do not identify themselves as gay or bisexual.

Kimbo

@ Andrei

Well he was considered somewhat dour in his lifetime so i doubt he was “gay” – he married Anne of Denmark and sired four children with her

As per SGA, doesn’t mean much in the context of a royal/political marriage that exist, even more than any other, to produce heirs. The Duke of Buckingham was James I and VI’s “favourite”, just as Piers Gaveston and the Distemper’s were for Edward II – and he too produced an heir, who, along with his mother, Edward’s II’s wife helped overthrow him (one of the few historically accuracies in Braveheart!). He was put to death by shoving a red hot poker up his backside, no doubt so they would not leave any visible marks, and possibly also in what was deemed appropriate dark humour.

Other almost certainly gay royals were William II (Rufus), and Frederick the Great of Prussia.

But Tsar Nicholas II wasn’t – in fact he was a kindly pious family man…who couldn’t organise a booze up in a brewery and whose ineptitude condemned his nation to bloody war, revolution and 70 years of repression. To paraphrase Martin Luther:

Better to be ruled by a competent homosexual, than an incompetent Christian prince. 😉

mikenmild

Edward’s II’s wife helped overthrow him (one of the few historically accuracies in Braveheart!)

A digression, but didn’t that film show Isabella having an affair with William Wallace and him possibly siring the future Edward III? In real life, her affair was with Roger Mortimer, an exile in Paris, long after Edward III was born. Isabella and Mortimer then returned to England and overthrew Edward II.
The poker up the shitter is almost certainly a fable. There is some faint evidence that Edward II escaped and went into anonymous exile – this has been championed by a recent biographer of Edward III.

Kimbo

The poker up the shitter is almost certainly a fable. There is some faint evidence that Edward II escaped and went into anonymous exile – this has been championed by a recent biographer of Edward III.

But, but, but Winston Churchill said it was true! 😉 Even gave the venue – Berkeley Castle. And let’s face it – once king’s abdicated in those days – Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V – you didn’t let them hang around as it just encouraged another coup d’etat with the old king re-installed as a puppet for the new regime.

Kimbo

…and Edward II’s favourites were the Despensers, not, as I posted above, the Distempers!

@ mikenmild

A digression, but didn’t that film show Isabella having an affair with William Wallace and him possibly siring the future Edward III?

Yes. Isabella was only 12 when she married Edward II in 1305…and as William Wallace was put to death the year before…well, do the maths. But apparently Mel Gibson was right that the SS death squads British redcoats operated during the American Revolution 😉

The right to discriminate, on any basis whatsoever, is fundamental to true liberty. So called anti-discrimination laws do not expand freedom, they reduce it. Modern liberalism is a profoundly anti-freedom ideology. When it comes to the crunch, liberals always choose the iron law of abstract equality over genuine liberty.

But the whole anti-discrimination claim of Liberals is a dishonest crock of shit to begin with. If liberals were genuinely concerned about not discriminating, they would advocate laws that make it illegal for those who prefer blonds to brunettes to discriminate on that basis when choosing a mate. After all, people are born blondes or brunettes or redheads, it’s not something they choose. So why no campaign about that? Or about discriminating on the basis of eye color, or any number of other possibilities? Because the Liberal-Left is NOT concerned with discrimination. It simply wants to discriminate in favor of it’s anointed “oppressed victim” groups and against those groups the Liberal-Left hates, mainly white heterosexuals and Christians in general.

Anti-discrimination laws are in reality pro-discrimination laws. They give the Liberal-Left’s anointed “oppressed victim” groups the legal power to harass, persecute, and destroy the lives of those they hate.

When dealing with the Liberal-Left, it’s vital to remember that it’s stated ideals are almost never it’s actual ideals and goals. It uses words like freedom and equality dishonestly to hide it’s actual agenda.

mikenmild

Maybe there is something in what you say Shawn. You argue that it is fine for people to discriminate against others, for whatever reason. private property, private rights, etc.
But that’s not the argument used by your mates in Jesusland. They’re not passing laws to say it’s okay to discriminate against blacks or disabled people. They want to discriminate against LGBT people, and are pretending that it is an issue of ‘religious freedom’. Would they be willing to allow racial discrimination for the ‘religious freedom’ of some cult (looking at you, Mormons)? Or my new ‘Church of the Left-Handed Brunettes’?

chiz

Fletch:

chiz, the figure wouldn’t be too different to America, where, according to the CDC –

Results—Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as ‘‘something else,’’ stated ‘‘I don’t know the answer,’’ or refused to provide an answer.

I think the statistic is much the same worldwide. The number of homosexuals is somewhere between 1% – 2%, without adding bisexuals

Still struggling with your reading comprehension Fletch? In the poll, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian but another 1.1% used another label, or refused to say, or weren’t sure. If 96.6% identify as straight then 3.4% don’t. Take away the 0.7% who identify as bisexual and you are left with 2.7% who are presumably gay.

Surveys on the prevalence of homosexuality are all over the place but the figure is generally in the 1%-5% range.

chiz, very fancy footwork there, but you don’t get to make up a figure by lumping in people who refused to say or aren’t sure with the people who say they are gay. You can’t posit that the “don’t knows” are gay when it suits you. The official figures for homosexuals are around 1.6% for both the UK and the U.S, and are similar in other countries.

@stephieboy, funny then how in a set of twins, one can turn out gay and the other not.

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

chiz

Fletch:

chiz, very fancy footwork there, but you don’t get to make up a figure by lumping in people who refused to say or aren’t sure with the people who say they are gay. You can’t posit that the “don’t knows” are gay when it suits you.

There is no footwork involved here. You’re the one who is making assumptions. We know categorically that some gay people aren’t going to admit it in a poll. If some guy shows up on their doorstep to ask them questions when their family is around and they haven’t come out to their family yet then they aren’t going to tell it to a pollster. On the other hand the number of people who are heterosexual and refuse to admit this will be minuscule, possibly zero. You can’t just arbitrarily decide, as you have, that no-one, not a single person, in the refuse-to-say-or-aren’t-sure camp is gay especially when there are good reasons to think otherwise. The fact remains that 3.4% of the people in the survey were not heterosexual.

The official figures for homosexuals are around 1.6% for both the UK and the U.S, and are similar in other countries.

There are no official figures. The fact that you found two surveys that agreed with each means nothing. There are lots of other surveys and polls out there that give larger numbers and some of them agree with each other too.

chiz

Fletch:

funny then how in a set of twins, one can turn out gay and the other not.

There is no problem here. Contrary to what many people think, identical twins are not in fact genetically identical. They are very similar, much more so than any of the other types of twin, but they are not 100% identical. Indeed, now that we have the technology to look, it turns out that the cells in your own body aren’t always genetically identical either. And there are, as SGA noted, questions about whether the twins were monochorionic and shared hormones etc, or whether they were dichorionic and had different environments.

You should also be wary of quoting Whitehead. He is a partisan crank. He is a devout conservative christian with openly gay family members (two, from memory) and has a vested ideological, and personal, interest in showing that there are no genetic factors in sexual orientation. He put out a silly book many years ago that cherry-picked studies, misrepresented or sometimes just misunderstood results and revealed that he had a mediocre understanding of genetics.